DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 9/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham II, et al., hereafter Graham, US Patent Publication No. 2021/0116200.
Regarding claim 1, Graham discloses a ram accelerator for accelerating a projectile (the recitation of a ram accelerator has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (1951). For the purposes of examination, the structure contained in the body of the claim is specifically addressed in the broadest, reasonable manner.), the ram accelerator comprising: a first tube body (40) having a first projectile bore; a second tube body (50) having a second projectile bore axially aligned with the first projectile bore; a baffle (30 carried in 20 as disclosed in [0051]) positioned between and operably coupling the first and second tube bodies (shown in figure 3 for example, the baffle assembly is between the two tubular bodies and configured to couple them together), the baffle having an annular baffle wall (30a, 30b) defining a central bore (apertures through 30a/b) that is axially aligned with the first and second projectile bores, and a chamber arranged adjacent to the annular baffle wall, wherein the chamber extends radially outward from the central bore (chamber located adjacent baffle walls as annotated below), wherein the annular baffle wall is configured to sweep a combustion wave relative to the projectile to prevent the combustion wave from traveling ahead of the projectile (given the shape of the baffles and the known function of a suppressor, the baffle walls 30a/b are specifically configured to sweep a combustion wave)
PNG
media_image1.png
380
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIGURE
Regarding claim 2, Graham further discloses the baffle has a first baffle member (30a) and a second baffle member (30b) arranged axially in a series, and wherein each of the baffle members includes at least one annular baffle wall and at least one chamber (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Graham further discloses the central bore is smaller in diameter than the first and second projectile bores (shown in figure 3).
Claim(s) 13-14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knowlen et al., hereafter Knowlen, US Patent Publication No. 2017/0307313.
Regarding claim 13, Knowlen discloses a ram accelerator for accelerating a projectile (figures 1a-c and [0013]), the ram accelerator comprising: a tube body (103) having a projectile bore; a sweeper baffle (109) projecting radially inward into the projectile bore, the sweeper baffle forming an annular baffle wall defining a central bore that is axially aligned with and a smaller diameter than the projectile bore (figures 1a-c), wherein the annular baffle wall is configured to sweep a combustion wave relative to the projectile to prevent the combustion wave from traveling ahead of the projectile ([0020-0021] discloses the baffles preventing the combustion wave from being pushed ahead of the projectile).
Regarding claim 14, Knowlen further discloses the sweeper baffle is a first sweeper baffle, the annular baffle wall is a first annular baffle wall, and the central bore is a first central bore (figures 1a-c and 4a-c); the ram accelerator further comprises a second baffle projecting radially inward into the projectile bore and spaced apart axially from the first sweeper baffle (figures 1a-c show multiple baffles), the second sweeper baffle forming a second annular baffle wall defining a second central bore that is axially aligned with and a smaller diameter than the projectile bore (figures 1a-c); and the second annular baffle wall is configured to sweep the combustion wave relative to the projectile to prevent the combustion wave from traveling ahead of the projectile ([0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Knowlen further discloses a third baffle projecting radially inward into the projectile bore and spaced apart axially from the first and second sweeper baffles (figures 1a-c show at least 3 baffles), the third sweeper baffle forming a third annular baffle wall defining a third central bore that is axially aligned with and a smaller diameter than the projectile bore (figures 1a-c); and the third annular baffle wall is configured to sweep the combustion wave relative to the projectile to prevent the combustion wave from traveling ahead of the projectile ([0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Knowlen further discloses an axial distance between the first sweeper baffle and the second sweeper baffle is the same as an axial distance between the second sweeper baffle and the third sweeper baffle (figures 1a-c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Brittingham, US Patent Publication No. 2018/0202742.
Regarding claim 5, Graham discloses the claimed invention and specifically discloses attachment of additional accessories; however, Graham does not specifically disclose a third tube body with second baffle. Nonetheless, Brittingham teaches a suppressor with a modular configuration and specifically teaches more or less baffle bodies 104 in [0053].
Thus it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Graham to have at least one additional baffle body included similar to that as taught by Brittingham with a reasonable expectation of success in order to handle the combustion wave in a desired manner depending on the firearm on which the device is used or in order to further attenuate the combustion wave.
Modifying Graham to have at least one additional baffle body teaches Graham having at least three tubular bodies and baffles dispersed throughout and thus broadly, yet reasonably, meets the limitation of a third tubular body with second baffle chamber as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Graham as modified by Brittingham further disclose the first baffle has two baffle members arranged axially in a series; the second baffle has two baffle members arranged axially in a series; and each of the baffle members includes at least one annular baffle wall and at least one chamber (Graham baffle assembly has 2 baffles 30a/b and, as modified by Brittingham above, two baffle assemblies are included, each with 2 baffles)
Regarding claim 7, Graham as modified by Brittingham discloses the claimed invention but does not specifically disclose a fourth tube body to this point. Nonetheless, the same teaching of a third tube body, as in claim 5, applies to a fourth tube body as specifically taught by Brittingham’s modular configuration and teaching of more or less baffle bodies 104.
Regarding claim 8, Graham as modified by Brittingham further disclose the first baffle has two baffle members arranged axially in a series; the second baffle has two baffle members arranged axially in a series; and each of the baffle members includes at least one annular baffle wall and at least one chamber (Graham baffle assembly has 2 baffles 30a/b and, as modified by Brittingham above, two baffle assemblies are included, each with 2 baffles)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Graham as modified by Brittingham discloses the claimed invention but does not specifically disclose the first tube body is axially shorter than the second tube body and wherein the second tube body is axially shorter than the third tube body. Nonetheless, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the tubular bodies get progressively longer like that claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Changing the size of the tubular bodies would result in predictable changes in the characteristics of the gas combustion wave.
Regarding claim 19, Graham as modified by Brittingham further discloses the first sweeper baffle is spaced axially closer to the second sweeper baffle than the second sweeper baffle is spaced axially from the third sweeper baffle (as modified above, the length of the intervening tube bodies is varied and therefore the distances between the baffles is varied)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is provided on form PTO-892.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. The Examiner may be reached by telephone at 571-272-6352.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DERRICK R MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641